national institute of productivity vs zanzibar development and management services 2002 tzhc 2025 15 november 2002

IN i'i:.. HIGH COUmI’ OF I'llfc/JTI..- :.1T . j ^ J •.U M K K C . CIVIL .OTICATIOK HO. S 6 n OF 2000 .TION _L II'i*JXITOTE OF I-KODUCTIVITY . lP±LTC FT Versus A -K Z IR il? DEVSLOPMIJ'JT Ai© I'i'Jl^GEI'r.rJT SERVICE f MY CCftPUT'UK ' ■ • • » o . „ K 3SP0HDENT Oii.J'LS Luanda . J. in t e n t io n o f t h i s a p p lic a tio n i , to c W l « the b i l l o f S t0XOCl t y th0 l!,xin« fe ste r who ic also the Registrar o f Hie T T * 'ipi“ ale I r l h ^ 1- *»• application i s f,Evde under rule 5 CD ° of c o sts. B uies ia 91 -d the p a r t i e s to t h i s a p p lic a tio n ore represen ted by o ^ t ' e s ! „ yOZa t a e tne a p p l^ ’n t i < * » « - » Mr. Ifeemwa a m m i fo r the •‘•'•esporkient, by J r r - to th°,proooedi,'cs « * . » « « , ° “ SUb“a S “ 10n" “ nd b oth ad v o cate s d u t i f u l l y f i l e d th e ir written submissions. On g o in g throush the subm issions os w e ll os the a p p lic a t io n , I was wondering whether t h e a p p lic a tio n i e proper b efo re t h i s ' . ™ * . ^ ' osoqic realized that the application is not p r o p e r b e f o r e this court. I will explain « In low i f one i s a g g rie v ed by d e c is io n o f the H e g is tr a r o f The Housing „ ;,Pe o l T rib u n al in h is c e c i t y a s f e x in s m y r c fe r Tribunal0*" ^ “ f " 0”0® * ° Chalrmn °f * » Housing Appeals T r ih i ‘ r. T PI'° Vld0d fo r ,,nder ^ 55 o f fe e Housing Appeals r ib u n a l U p p e a l) E u le s , 1937 (GH 249/1990). The Kule read s: 55 ( 1 ) ..ny person who i s d i s s a t i s f i e d w ith a d e c is io n of tne Registrar in has Capacity os Taxing Officer may require cny matter of law or principle to be referred to the Chairman for his decision and the Chairman shall determine the mstter as the justice of the case may require ,, / 2 (2 ) — ta * , tte t . b in of costs a a taxed i- ^nifoGtly 0 - c “ & 0 - * i i ; ;nnifectiy Ph • De r e ferred to thn ; h u r '"' * * > 1 1 1™ w ,,„ t o *° deducti ™ , ~ e eucI* eauction or addition vr:;n „ r . reasonable '~ der tlle b i l 1 (■*) a Pplicn±ion. for the Iiopi^tr- r - 7 • ° l" e" TO m y b e * * > to r U y at thc tlmo °f ta xation . “ itIl“ n<>Ven da^ ->««• -Ind the word ^ to ir r , n, i o dofined th ss!_ " ‘* 0 lr " n" ne£,no «*■ M i r r e n or Deputy chairman o f eith er Housing ' ■, R-ibunal or the ^ ■ the ^ g m a i Housing TV-n *> our case i t i „ , „ .^ I n b “ “ >l. s ‘W : l n s -ippeDl Tribunal. Eron the foregoin g, therefore t l .i - j. £ * * * * " « “ of the T^31 K DOt thS r i e M tribunal^ x ing blaster of thp* tt^ e Same st^ c k out with costs. ^ "PPCals Qrdor accordingly R uling delivered In f h ^ rrr* « - ^ of °f ^ ^ ic a n t